Parenting is not the be-all and end-all...

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

For instance, if I've had a child who was killed by a drunk driver, it would be hard for me to approach the topic of drunk driving legislation rationally. In fact, that sort of emotional reaction is arguably at the root of the draconian laws most of the world suffers.

I'm not asserting that Godwin suffers from this sort of reaction. I'm merely asking if she has asked herself those questions. And it's not me who needs those answers, it is she.

 

Your concern is not unfounded...

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/37844/293910.aspx#293910

 

[kirk paolinelli]

I have a question to you as far as nature vs. nuture. If we were going to make financial bet as to whether dog was vicious, and we had some standard to measure this when the dog was full grown. But you have a choice to pick the breed or how it's raised what would you choose?

I know for me I would choose how its raised everytime.

[godwin_anarchism]

 

 

For instance, if I've had a child who was killed by a drunk driver, it would be hard for me to approach the topic of drunk driving legislation rationally. In fact, that sort of emotional reaction is arguably at the root of the draconian laws most of the world suffers.

I'm not asserting that Godwin suffers from this sort of reaction. I'm merely asking if she has asked herself those questions. And it's not me who needs those answers, it is she.

 

Your concern is not unfounded...

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/37844/293910.aspx#293910

 

 

 

 and you've proven my point made in the other thread that talking about one's abuse will be used against you and would work to one's disadvantage!

[TronCat]

 

I have a question to you as far as nature vs. nuture. If we were going to make financial bet as to whether dog was vicious, and we had some standard to measure this when the dog was full grown. But you have a choice to pick the breed or how it's raised what would you choose?

I know for me I would choose how its raised everytime.

 

It's quite well known that particular dog breeds have particular innate behavioral traits, and varied levels of innate intelligence.

[kirk paolinelli]

I k

 

 

I have a question to you as far as nature vs. nuture. If we were going to make financial bet as to whether dog was vicious, and we had some standard to measure this when the dog was full grown. But you have a choice to pick the breed or how it's raised what would you choose?

I know for me I would choose how its raised everytime.

 

It's quite well known that particular dog breeds have particular innate behavioral traits, and varied levels of innate intelligence.

 

I noticed you didn't answer the question. Is there a paticular reason why?

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

 

For instance, if I've had a child who was killed by a drunk driver, it would be hard for me to approach the topic of drunk driving legislation rationally. In fact, that sort of emotional reaction is arguably at the root of the draconian laws most of the world suffers.

I'm not asserting that Godwin suffers from this sort of reaction. I'm merely asking if she has asked herself those questions. And it's not me who needs those answers, it is she.

 

Your concern is not unfounded...

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/37844/293910.aspx#293910

 

 

 and you've proven my point made in the other thread that talking about one's abuse will be used against you and would work to one's disadvantage!

 

How have I used it against you? As I did in the other thread, I am in support of your well-being.

[STer]

I find it very telling that all I want and have wanted since very early in this thread is a clear, once-and-for-all, explanation of what Stefan's view is on the relationship between child abuse (or childhood trauma, if you prefer) and the larger issues of violence/aggression in the world.

Not only is such an explanation not forthcoming, but nearly every post is an attempt to distract from the question with ad hominems, discussions of motive rather than substance and so on.

- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?

-Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?

These are straightforward questions. And on a philosophy board, defined by its supposed rationality and empiricism, I find it very very telling that it is so difficult to get a straight answer, even after pages and pages of posts. I find it even more troubling that most others who respond aren't just as interested in getting that straight answer, but actually seem more interested in finding ways to distract and obfuscate from those questions.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?

-Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective
for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?"

 

Yes. Yes.

[Nathan T_ Freeman]

 

 

 

For instance, if I've had a child who was killed by a drunk driver, it would be hard for me to approach the topic of drunk driving legislation rationally. In fact, that sort of emotional reaction is arguably at the root of the draconian laws most of the world suffers.

I'm not asserting that Godwin suffers from this sort of reaction. I'm merely asking if she has asked herself those questions. And it's not me who needs those answers, it is she.

 

Your concern is not unfounded...

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/37844/293910.aspx#293910

 

 

 and you've proven my point made in the other thread that talking about one's abuse will be used against you and would work to one's disadvantage!

 

Actually, you deserve a longer explanation...

In this thread, you are questioning the argument that abuse is destructive to the physical brain and therefore the reasoning capacity of children. Further, you have said that you find this argument manipulative, initially by reversing the causal basis of the argument as mistaking the objective (a free and peaceful society) for the means (the fair and peaceful treatment of children in society.)

Elsewhere on the same forum, you describe your own experience as a child...

I believe my mom doesn't like to see children happy.  I remember that whenever I (or my siblings) was happy for some reason, she'd interrupt with a physical slap or put down, or snatch away the toy, laughing like it is funny.

My brother is a weird one too.  I could be murdered and raped in front of him and he probably wouldn't even look up from whatever he's doing.  He'd probably say later on that he didn't notice anything.

Would it be rational to regard these issues as unrelated? If you feel manipulated by the argument that the state is an effect of childhood trauma, AND you clearly experienced a traumatic childhood -- it would be crazy to think these weren't related outcomes.

In fact, what it suggests is that your feeling of manipulation makes sense given your personal history. If you listen to the history of Stef's podcasts on parenting and childhood, one of the themes you'll find is that of normalization; the human tendency to attempt to take whatever we experienced in our own histories and color it as "normal." If a person's experiences as a child were actually abnormal, then it can be very difficult for them to feel anything other than "broken."

But you are not broken. And what happened to you wasn't normal. It wasn't even "not acceptable." It was wrong.

[STer]

 

"- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?

-Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective
for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?"

 

Yes. Yes.

 

Are those Stefan's views though?

And how do you (or he) possibly support these stances empirically with the current knowledge we have? This is what I think Godwin and I are both stumped by. The argument in BIB does NOT really show those things sufficiently.

[kirk paolinelli]

 

- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?

-Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?

These are straightforward questions. And on a philosophy board, defined by its supposed rationality and empiricism, I find it very very telling that it is so difficult to get a straight answer, even after pages and pages of posts. I find it even more troubling that most others who respond aren't just as interested in getting that straight answer, but actually seem more interested in finding ways to distract and obfuscate from those questions.

 

"- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?"

Do you think there is any way to prove this, at this point and time? The best I think you can get is a theory. But less violence/aggression towards children would be automatically less violence/aggression in the world. Which I think everyone would agree is a good thing.

"Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?"

I would think living your life free of using violence or aggression towards others would be the best way. Your own actions are really the only thing you can control.

I'm interested to know what you think?  

Why does it matter if its the primary reason for violence/aggression?

If childhood trauma is a reason but not the primary reason does that make a big difference to you?

Or do you believe it has nothing to do with it?

What do you believe is the primary reason? Genetics?

 

[STer]

 

 

- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?

-Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?

These are straightforward questions. And on a philosophy board, defined by its supposed rationality and empiricism, I find it very very telling that it is so difficult to get a straight answer, even after pages and pages of posts. I find it even more troubling that most others who respond aren't just as interested in getting that straight answer, but actually seem more interested in finding ways to distract and obfuscate from those questions.

 

"- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?"

Do you think there is any way to prove this, at this point and time? The best I think you can get is a theory. But less violence/aggression towards children would be automatically less violence/aggression in the world. Which I think everyone would agree is a good thing.

"Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?"

I would think living your life free of using violence or aggression towards others would be the best way. Your own actions are really the only thing you can control.

I'm interested to know what you think?  

Why does it matter if its the primary reason for violence/aggression?

If childhood trauma is a reason but not the primary reason does that make a big difference to you?

Or do you believe it has nothing to do with it?

What do you believe is the primary reason? Genetics?

 

 

I believe we are not nearly at a point where we can say with much confidence that nurture, rather than nature, is primarily responsible for the violence/aggression in the world. I would guess it is some combination of both and we can't yet pinpoint what that is. Even Stefan claims to be agnostic on this, but I don't think his work usually reflects that agnosticism and often it seems to pretty solidly be based on the nurture side of things.

Yes we all agree we should reduce childhood trauma as best we can. But how that relates to reducing the larger issues of violence/aggression (whether it is a massive impact or a minor impact) we don't know yet.

The question is whether there is some other factor that is crucial. And if you too blindly buy into one side of this debate prematurely, you stop looking for those other factors as hard. Perhaps there is indeed a significant genetic component, for example. And people should be seeking that out just as strongly as they seek out environmental causes. Until we have a solid answer, we should avoid bias.

And remember that there are implications even for simply stating a stance. If you say that violence/aggression are based in trauma, then you are implying that parents who have a violent/aggressive child were abusers. If you're wrong, that is a terrible false accusation. And that's just one example. Taking stands on these types of issues has consequences and should not be done lightly.

If your goal is to bring about a healthier, more sustainable, more peaceful world, then of course it matters what you think is the primary strategic way to do that.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

I can't talk for Stef but from everything I've read and heard from him, I would say that they are Stef's views. As for how I support my views empirically.... through evidence. That's the only way one can support anything empirically. That evidence ranges from things I've read to conversations I've had to personal experiences with my own family and the families of friends.

 

As for your claim about the BiB series, I agree wholeheartedly that it doesn't support those things sufficiently. And, it's not supposed to. It's a short documentary series on the subject of human psychological development as it relates to childhood and to cover each and every aspect of the topic sufficiently, it would have to be so long that most people wouldn't even begin to watch it. What it is designed to do is put forth some of the base arguments for the ethical treatment of children and how that affects society writ large in such a way as to entice interested viewer to gather more information on his or her own. Stef says often that no one should take his word on anything. Rather, he advises that everyone with interest should do their own due diligence.

 

I don't know how much time you or Godwin have spent studying and I won't make judgements or accusations toward that time but I will offer that if you are truly "stumped" by the arguments presented in the BiB series, you probably need to do more research. To begin with, you'll need about two thousand hours to review just the material Stef has presented in its entirety. After that, there are at least a few thousand more hours of available reading on the subject.

 

Edit - I'd also like to add that the study of human violence and its relationship to environment (in earnest) has been going on for about 45 years. Phychohistory is a branch of psychology that deals specifically with this topic and there are forty years worth of study materials available from The Institute of Psychohistory alone.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"Taking stands on these types of issues has consequences and should not be done lightly."

 

What is your history with taking stands and what sort of consequenses were there?

[STer]

 

I can't talk for Stef but from everything I've read and heard from him, I would say that they are Stef's views

 

Then how do you explain the quote here?

 

As for how I support my views empirically.... through evidence. That's the only way one can support anything empirically. That evidence ranges from things I've read to conversations I've had to personal experiences with my own family and the families of friends.

 

So then if someone else claims violence/aggression are totally genetic and as evidence they cite "stuff I read and some conversations and experiences I had" you'd accept that? That's not scientific evidence on which you can base a conclusion this crucial and important.

Our qualms about BIB aren't really about BIB, per se. BIB is just one place that seems to distill the overall philosophy that runs through most of Stef's work. Even though in that quote I linked to above he claims to be agnostic on this issue, his work doesn't seem to reflect that agnosticism most of the time and Godwin has documented some places he seems to go almost to the extent of showing a solid belief in nurture as the cause of violence/aggression.

Godwin and I are only "stumped" as to how people seem to think that BIB (and arguments like it) show something they do not - namely that childhood trauma is the primary reason for violence/aggression and should be our #1 focus if we want to bring about a peaceful world. We understand quite well the work itself. We simply are trying to understand how the argument is being accepted as valid when it seems like overreach to us.

And again I want to reiterate this is not to say Stef's work isn't fantastic and important. Only that I think he is trying to stretch the conclusions beyond what can be supported.

[kirk paolinelli]

 

 

 

- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?

-Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?

These are straightforward questions. And on a philosophy board, defined by its supposed rationality and empiricism, I find it very very telling that it is so difficult to get a straight answer, even after pages and pages of posts. I find it even more troubling that most others who respond aren't just as interested in getting that straight answer, but actually seem more interested in finding ways to distract and obfuscate from those questions.

 

"- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?"

Do you think there is any way to prove this, at this point and time? The best I think you can get is a theory. But less violence/aggression towards children would be automatically less violence/aggression in the world. Which I think everyone would agree is a good thing.

"Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?"

I would think living your life free of using violence or aggression towards others would be the best way. Your own actions are really the only thing you can control.

I'm interested to know what you think?  

Why does it matter if its the primary reason for violence/aggression?

If childhood trauma is a reason but not the primary reason does that make a big difference to you?

Or do you believe it has nothing to do with it?

What do you believe is the primary reason? Genetics?

 

 

I believe we are not nearly at a point where we can say with much confidence that nurture, rather than nature, is primarily responsible for the violence/aggression in the world. I would guess it is some combination of both and we can't yet pinpoint what that is. Even Stefan claims to be agnostic on this, but I don't think his work usually reflects that agnosticism and often it seems to pretty solidly be based on the nurture side of things.

Yes we all agree we should reduce childhood trauma as best we can. But how that relates to reducing the larger issues of violence/aggression (whether it is a massive impact or a minor impact) we don't know yet.

The question is whether there is some other factor that is crucial. And if you too blindly buy into one side of this debate prematurely, you stop looking for those other factors as hard. Perhaps there is indeed a significant genetic component, for example. And people should be seeking that out just as strongly as they seek out environmental causes. Until we have a solid answer, we should avoid bias.

And remember that there are implications even for simply stating a stance. If you say that violence/aggression are based in trauma, then you are implying that parents who have a violent/aggressive child were abusers. If you're wrong, that is a terrible false accusation. And that's just one example. Taking stands on these types of issues has consequences and should not be done lightly.

If your goal is to bring about a healthier, more sustainable, more peaceful world, then of course it matters what you think is the primary strategic way to do that.

 

"The question is whether there is some other factor that is crucial."

What do you think are possible factors?

What do you think is the crucial factor?

"And if you too blindly buy into one side of this debate prematurely, you stop looking for those other factors as hard."

I think this is a little insulting to use the word "blindly", I think there has been plenty of studies and evidence used by Stef.

I know for me, a lot of this just makes sense at gut level with what i've seen and experienced in my life. Have you had experiences that contraindicate the theory that abuse towards children leads to more abuse? And I'm talking in the general sense.

Also I posted this question earlier.

I have a question to you as far as nature vs. nuture. If we were going to make financial bet as to whether dog was vicious, and we had some standard to measure this when the dog was full grown. But you have a choice to pick the breed or how it's raised what would you choose?

What would you choose?

This I think goes a long way telling us how much effect nuture has on an idividual.

 

[STer]

 

"Taking stands on these types of issues has consequences and should not be done lightly."

 

What is your history with taking stands and what sort of consequenses were there?

 

Every stand we take has potential consequences. That's why I tend to remain agnostic unless very confident. When forced to place a bet I place my best bet. But premature taking of stances should, in my view, be avoided. We're talking here about one of the most vexing problems in the history of humanity - the roots of violence and aggression. To jump to a conclusion on such an issue is really not justifiable for a responsible person who identifies as rational or empirical in my view.

Refusing to jump to premature conclusions is just as much a part of rationalism and empiricism as is taking stances when they are supportable.

[STer]

 

 

 

 

- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?

-Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?

These are straightforward questions. And on a philosophy board, defined by its supposed rationality and empiricism, I find it very very telling that it is so difficult to get a straight answer, even after pages and pages of posts. I find it even more troubling that most others who respond aren't just as interested in getting that straight answer, but actually seem more interested in finding ways to distract and obfuscate from those questions.

 

"- Is childhood trauma the primary reason for violence/aggression in our world?"

Do you think there is any way to prove this, at this point and time? The best I think you can get is a theory. But less violence/aggression towards children would be automatically less violence/aggression in the world. Which I think everyone would agree is a good thing.

"Should reducing childhood trauma, strategically, be the #1 objective for those who want to create a peaceful, healthy, sustainable world?"

I would think living your life free of using violence or aggression towards others would be the best way. Your own actions are really the only thing you can control.

I'm interested to know what you think?  

Why does it matter if its the primary reason for violence/aggression?

If childhood trauma is a reason but not the primary reason does that make a big difference to you?

Or do you believe it has nothing to do with it?

What do you believe is the primary reason? Genetics?

 

 

I believe we are not nearly at a point where we can say with much confidence that nurture, rather than nature, is primarily responsible for the violence/aggression in the world. I would guess it is some combination of both and we can't yet pinpoint what that is. Even Stefan claims to be agnostic on this, but I don't think his work usually reflects that agnosticism and often it seems to pretty solidly be based on the nurture side of things.

Yes we all agree we should reduce childhood trauma as best we can. But how that relates to reducing the larger issues of violence/aggression (whether it is a massive impact or a minor impact) we don't know yet.

The question is whether there is some other factor that is crucial. And if you too blindly buy into one side of this debate prematurely, you stop looking for those other factors as hard. Perhaps there is indeed a significant genetic component, for example. And people should be seeking that out just as strongly as they seek out environmental causes. Until we have a solid answer, we should avoid bias.

And remember that there are implications even for simply stating a stance. If you say that violence/aggression are based in trauma, then you are implying that parents who have a violent/aggressive child were abusers. If you're wrong, that is a terrible false accusation. And that's just one example. Taking stands on these types of issues has consequences and should not be done lightly.

If your goal is to bring about a healthier, more sustainable, more peaceful world, then of course it matters what you think is the primary strategic way to do that.

 

"The question is whether there is some other factor that is crucial."

What do you think are possible factors?

What do you think is the crucial factor?

"And if you too blindly buy into one side of this debate prematurely, you stop looking for those other factors as hard."

I think this is a little insulting to use the word "blindly", I think there has been plenty of studies and evidence used by Stef.

I know for me, a lot of this just makes sense at gut level with what i've seen and experienced in my life. Have you had experiences that contraindicate the theory that abuse towards children leads to more abuse? And I'm talking in the general sense.

Also I posted this question earlier.

I have a question to you as far as nature vs. nuture. If we were going to make financial bet as to whether dog was vicious, and we had some standard to measure this when the dog was full grown. But you have a choice to pick the breed or how it's raised what would you choose?

What would you choose?

This I think goes a long way telling us how much effect nuture has on an idividual.

 

 

Your entire response just points back to burden of proof. For the sake of interesting discussion I answer these post a lot of times. But the fact is, I don't have any responsibility to do so. The burden of proof is on Stefan. We are asking for his view of the subject and his evidence for his view.

I don't have to offer any alternative proposals. I can and sometimes do (and if you go read my other posts you'll see them all, as I'm getting tired of typing the same responses over and over). But I don't have to. And I have repeatedly stated that I am agnostic on this issue - truly agnostic and that is reflected in my approach. Stefan claims to be agnostic (which means you could just as well be grilling him with these same questions since, in theory, he agrees with me). The only difference is that he often doesn't actually seem to be agnostic when you look at his work and has made other statements that appear to contradict that.

Stefan appears to us to have made a claim. We want to know if we have interpreted his claim correctly and how he believes the evidence supports that claim. That's it. It is very non-rational that, rather than join in asking him to explain, you turn on the people asking the questions and pepper them left and right with an endless bunch of questions. The burden of proof is not on us. It is on the person making the claim in question.

[kirk paolinelli]

I'm do not feel i'm asking pointless questions. I'm honestly interested in your answers. To me it really doesn't matter what Stef thinks the causal reasons for aggression or if he has any proof of it. It would be the arguement from effect. You shouldn't abuse children or anyone for that matter because it's wrong.

What I do believe though. Is that neither you nor tron would answer my dog question. Which by the way you haven't answered. I think this is because you both have a gut feeling as well about how much nuture matters.

As tron stated in reference to my question, that different breeds have different tempermants. This is true but it is nowhere near as important as how the dog is raised. They train fighting dogs to be vicious. Even a pit bull needs training.

[STer]

 

I'm do not feel i'm asking pointless questions. I'm honestly interested in your answers. To me it really doesn't matter what Stef thinks the causal reasons for aggression or if he has any proof of it. It would be the arguement from effect. You shouldn't abuse children or anyone for that matter because it's wrong.

What I do believe though. Is that neither you nor tron would answer my dog question. Which by the way have answered. Is because you both have a gut feeling as well about how much nuture matters.

As tron stated in reference to my question, that different breeds have different tempermants. This is true but it is nowhere near as important as how the dog is raised. They train fighting dogs to be vicious. Even a pit bull needs training.

 

I didn't say your questions are pointless. I said they aren't relevant to this particular discussion about claims Stefan has made. If you are just curious about my views on things, then we can talk about them. But in this thread, I find them a distraction from trying to get some answers to the actual topic, where the burden of proof is not on us.

Nobody is questioning if children should be abused. The question is whether we are at a point where we can say with solidity "Yes we are confident that childhood trauma is the primary driver of violence/aggression and thus should be our main strategic focus" or if we are at a point where we still do not know the primary driver(s) of violence/aggression and thus more research is required before drawing a conclusion as to the best strategy.

I think people should be encouraged to eat healthily too. But that doesn't mean that I think if they do so, major wars will end, for example. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you think it necessarily brings about the other.

As for your dog question, why are you not repeatedly aiming that question at Stefan? Stefan claims to be agnostic on the roots of violence/aggression, the same stance I take. Yet for some reason you keep peppering Tron and me and Godwin with this question as if it somehow discredits us. So the first problem is why you think we're the ones to be asking this question to rather than Stefan. The second, more important, problem is that we are not talking about the roots of violence/aggression in dogs, but in humans. They may be quite different. Dogs do not participate in world wars, humans do. There are some far more complex dynamics at work with humans. I have no idea about the roots of dog violence. Perhaps you're right and it's all nurture with dogs and no breeds are more violent innately (or maybe you're wrong, I would have to look at the research to know). The bottom line is it doesn't tell us what is going on with humans to know that answer as relates to dogs.

[TronCat]

 

As tron stated in reference to my question, that different breeds have different tempermants. This is true but it is nowhere near as important as how the dog is raised. They train fighting dogs to be vicious. Even a pit bull needs training.

 

Not just any dog can be trained to be a "fighting dog", this is understood by most anyone in that line of business.

This argument against the importance of genetics in our nature is silly.

[STer]

 

 

As tron stated in reference to my question, that different breeds have different tempermants. This is true but it is nowhere near as important as how the dog is raised. They train fighting dogs to be vicious. Even a pit bull needs training.

 

Not just any dog can be trained to be a "fighting dog", this is understood by most anyone in that line of business.

This argument against the importance of genetics in our nature is silly.

 

In addition to this entire dog issue not necessarily shedding any light on humans, it's also worth noting that you don't see too many fighting poodles.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

"So then if someone else claims violence/aggression are totally genetic
and as evidence they cite "stuff I read and some conversations and
experiences I had" you'd accept that?"

 

I looked at the material you presented. I don't expect you to take my word, I expect you to do your own research and I provided a few places for you to go since I obviously can not include all of the evidence I have read in a forum thread.

 

"That's not scientific evidence on which you can base a conclusion this crucial and important."

 

Most of what I've read has indeed been scientific. Moreover, the experiences I've had have been congruent with the results of the scientific studies I have read and the conversations I've had on the matter are no different than the conversations on this forum. They aren't intended to be scientific... they are discussions about the science. I'll thank you not to judge my research material unscientific until such time as you have reviewed it yourself. I'll also afford you that same courtesy.

 

"Even though in that quote I linked to above he claims to be agnostic on this issue, his work doesn't seem to reflect that~"

 

That he's agnostic only means he cannot prove nurture and disprove nature. Being agnostic is not synonymous with indecision.

 

"Every stand we take has potential consequences. That's why I tend to
remain agnostic unless very confident. When forced to place a bet I
place my best bet. But premature taking of stances should, in my view,
be avoided. We're talking here about one of the most vexing problems in
the history of humanity - the roots of violence and aggression. To jump
to a conclusion on such an issue is really not justifiable for a
responsible person who identifies as rational or empirical in my view.

Refusing to jump to premature conclusions is just as much a part of
rationalism and empiricism as is taking stances when they are
supportable."

 

With all due respect, that's a wall of fog. If you don't understand what I asked or you don't want to answer, please either don't respond or simply say you don't want to answer.

"The burden of proof is on Stefan. We are asking for his view of the subject and his evidence for his view."

 

As I mentioned earlier, there are a few thousand hours of his view available (for free) and within those hours, there is ample evidence provided for his view. By this time, it is clear that you're attempting to turn his thesis on its head simply because he hasn't returned to this particular thread and typed the three letters I typed a few posts up. That has to be it, because you're far too intelligent to have consumed much of his material, understood it "quite well" and still remain oblivious to what his position could possibly be.

[kirk paolinelli]

"Nobody is questioning if children should be abused. The question is whether we are at a point where we can say with solidity "Yes we are confident that childhood trauma is the primary driver of violence/aggression and thus should be our main strategic focus" or if we are at a point where we still do not know the primary driver(s) of violence/aggression and thus more research is required before drawing a conclusion as to the best strategy."

I'm still not sure why it is important whether childhood trauma is the primary driver of violence and aggression. And what do you mean by "our main strategic focus"?

Also when you talk about the burden of proof, what kind of proof are you looking for? I mean scientific trials would not be possible for something like this because childhood trauma could come from parents, siblings, relatives, teachers, friends, classmates There are too many variables.

That's why I asked the question about the dogs not to discredit you. It to me is just simpler way to look at the effects of nurture, dogs enviornment is pretty constant, Where as kids have many more influences and are at greater risk of mental abuse. I thought that question would help you see my perspective. I guess maybe you haven't been around dogs or just don't see the correlation I do.

Also when say "more research is required before drawing a conclusion as to the best strategy" , What kind of research would meet your burden of proof? In this area I don't think you will ever get anything better than correlations and theory, or at least I can't imagine how you would.

As for best strategy.

What do you think of mine?

To live your life free of using violence or aggression towards others.

[STer]

 

"So then if someone else claims violence/aggression are totally genetic
and as evidence they cite "stuff I read and some conversations and
experiences I had" you'd accept that?"

 

I looked at the material you presented. I don't expect you to take my word, I expect you to do your own research and I provided a few places for you to go since I obviously can not include all of the evidence I have read in a forum thread.

 

"That's not scientific evidence on which you can base a conclusion this crucial and important."

 

Most of what I've read has indeed been scientific. Moreover, the experiences I've had have been congruent with the results of the scientific studies I have read and the conversations I've had on the matter are no different than the conversations on this forum. They aren't intended to be scientific... they are discussions about the science. I'll thank you not to judge my research material unscientific until such time as you have reviewed it yourself. I'll also afford you that same courtesy.

 

"Even though in that quote I linked to above he claims to be agnostic on this issue, his work doesn't seem to reflect that~"

 

That he's agnostic only means he cannot prove nurture and disprove nature. Being agnostic is not synonymous with indecision.

 

"Every stand we take has potential consequences. That's why I tend to
remain agnostic unless very confident. When forced to place a bet I
place my best bet. But premature taking of stances should, in my view,
be avoided. We're talking here about one of the most vexing problems in
the history of humanity - the roots of violence and aggression. To jump
to a conclusion on such an issue is really not justifiable for a
responsible person who identifies as rational or empirical in my view.

Refusing to jump to premature conclusions is just as much a part of
rationalism and empiricism as is taking stances when they are
supportable."

 

With all due respect, that's a wall of fog. If you don't understand what I asked or you don't want to answer, please either don't respond or simply say you don't want to answer.

"The burden of proof is on Stefan. We are asking for his view of the subject and his evidence for his view."

 

As I mentioned earlier, there are a few thousand hours of his view available (for free) and within those hours, there is ample evidence provided for his view. By this time, it is clear that you're attempting to turn his thesis on its head simply because he hasn't returned to this particular thread and typed the three letters I typed a few posts up. That has to be it, because you're far too intelligent to have consumed much of his material, understood it "quite well" and still remain oblivious to what his position could possibly be.

 

Remember, scientific evidence that environment plays a role doesn't tell us that innate traits don't also. Have you seen research ruling OUT the nature side of things? Or only ruling in some environmental aspects? What Godwin and I are saying is NOT that we believe environment plays no role, but rather that we don't believe the nature side of things has been sufficiently ruled out. That's a very important distinction. But Stefan puts out a lot of work that seems to reflect a belief that nature has been ruled out - even while claiming not to believe that. It's very confusing.

 

That he's agnostic only means he cannot prove nurture and disprove nature.

 

Godwin and I feel a lot of his work doesn't accurately reflect this lack of proof and seems to portray things as much more certain than they are.

The fact that there are thousands of hours of his work is precisely part of the problem. At various points in that work he seems to contradict himself. Far back in this thread, we juxtaposed some seemingly contradictory statements. Nobody has been able to reconcile them yet. So there is a confusion as to exactly what his stance is. And it's very odd that the pressure isn't put on him to clarify but on us. What do you think it says that when people come in the forum and simply ask for clarification of some seemingly contradictory quotes, the majority of responses are interrogating them rather than asking for that clarification?

[kirk paolinelli]

What dogs can't be trained to be vicious or fighting?

I don't believe this to be true. Some breeds are more vicious than others. But even those breeds can be raised to be social pets. 

I'm not arguing against the importance of genetics, I'm arguing their importance relative to how those genes are nurtured.

So you would rather choose the breed on that bet?

[kirk paolinelli]

"In addition to this entire dog issue not necessarily shedding any light on humans, it's also worth noting that you don't see too many fighting poodles."

You don't see many 5'0" nba players, doesn't mean people 5'0" tall can't be taught to play basketball.

[STer]

 

I'm still not sure why it is important whether childhood trauma is the primary driver of violence and aggression. And what do you mean by "our main strategic focus"?

 

You are on a forum devoted to discussing how to bring more peace to the world. It is therefore not just a discussion forum, but an activist endeavor, as well. Activists must decide on strategy. And Stefan seems to promote a strategy that says "We should focus on reducing childhood trauma as our main priority. That will be the best use of our energy to make the world a better place." I am not sure that is the best strategy for making the world a better place. It's ONE strategy. And it does help to some degree. But there may be other more important things. That has nothing to do with how horrific child abuse is. Many horrific things happen in the world. The question is which ones are fundamental ones which, if addressed, would have the greatest impact. That's what activists must do - prioritize based on what has the most impact.

 

Also when you talk about the burden of proof, what kind of proof are you looking for? I mean scientific trials would not be possible for something like this because childhood trauma could come from parents, siblings, relatives, teachers, friends, classmates There are too many variables.

 

So you're basically saying that it's not even possible to know whether nature or nurture is the cause of violence/aggression? If that's the case you should be as confused as Godwin and I are by the places where Stefan seems to claim quite confidently that childhood trauma is in fact the cause.

You can't extend questions of violence/aggression in dogs to humans. And on top of that, as has been pointed out, you won't find many fighting poodles.

 

Also when say "more research is required before drawing a conclusion as to the best strategy" , What kind of research would meet your burden of proof? In this area I don't think you will ever get anything better than correlations and theory, or at least I can't imagine how you would.

 

Then you should be the one railing against anyone claiming to know with any solidity, rather than me. You sound even more agnostic than me!

 

As for best strategy.

What do you think of mine?

To live your life free of using violence or aggression towards others.

 

I think it's likely overly simplistic. You not using violence or aggression doesn't necessarily stop those who do use it. It may even be that, in a game theory sense, when it's more unclear who will be violent or aggression, people are more cautious in general, including those who are themselves violent or aggressive.

I'm not saying that's the case. But I think it's extremely simplistic to think "If I reduce my level of violence, that addresses violence and aggression as a global issue." There are many issues where the same issue at a personal level has different factors involved than it does at a global level.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

"Not just any dog can be trained to be a "fighting dog", this is understood by most anyone in that line of business."

 

Any dog can be trained to be vicious. And, any dog can be trained to fight. The breeds that are chosen are chosen because they have been bred in such a way that they often have brain abnormalities that don't occur naturally outside random instances and because they are strong enough to make the "show" a brutal, bloody fight. Poodles can be quite fierce and aggressive animals but they just can't create the bloodbaths that an 80lb Pit Bull Terrier can. This is why Pit's are the dog of choice.

 

With that out of the way, here is the yet unanswered question relating to dogs:

 

Kirk24: "If we were going to make financial bet as to whether dog was vicious,
and we had some standard to measure this when the dog was full grown.
But you have a choice to pick the breed or how it's raised what would
you choose?"

 

[STer]

 

I don't believe this to be true. Some breeds are more vicious than others. But even those breeds can be raised to be social pets. 

 

Kirk, your analogy with dogs is not relevant to this thread. Dogs are dogs, Humans are humans. What is true for dogs may be completely different for humans as it may be for tons of other species.

Even if we were to accept it as relevant here, the point is that vicious dogs can be tamed BY HUMANS. That doesn't mean vicious humans could be tamed by other humans. Maybe if some much stronger more powerful type of being appeared, it could tame vicious humans the way humans tame vicious dogs and that could be the answer to our problems (an answer you'd probably find even worse than the problem itself)

Humans do not have some much larger, much smarter species taming the vicious among us. So this analogy to dogs doesn't help us here. Please let it go and focus on humans, not dogs.

[kirk paolinelli]

 

 

I'm still not sure why it is important whether childhood trauma is the primary driver of violence and aggression. And what do you mean by "our main strategic focus"?

 

You are on a forum devoted to discussing how to bring more peace to the world. It is therefore not just a discussion forum, but an activist endeavor, as well. Activists must decide on strategy. And Stefan seems to promote a strategy that says "We should focus on reducing childhood trauma as our main priority. That will be the best use of our energy to make the world a better place." I am not sure that is the best strategy for making the world a better place. It's ONE strategy. And it does help to some degree. But there may be other more important things. That has nothing to do with how horrific child abuse is. Many horrific things happen in the world. The question is which ones are fundamental ones which, if addressed, would have the greatest impact. That's what activists must do - prioritize based on what has the most impact.

 

Also when you talk about the burden of proof, what kind of proof are you looking for? I mean scientific trials would not be possible for something like this because childhood trauma could come from parents, siblings, relatives, teachers, friends, classmates There are too many variables.

 

So you're basically saying that it's not even possible to know whether nature or nurture is the cause of violence/aggression? If that's the case you should be as confused as Godwin and I are by the places where Stefan seems to claim quite confidently that childhood trauma is in fact the cause.

You can't extend questions of violence/aggression in dogs to humans. And on top of that, as has been pointed out, you won't find many fighting poodles.

 

Also when say "more research is required before drawing a conclusion as to the best strategy" , What kind of research would meet your burden of proof? In this area I don't think you will ever get anything better than correlations and theory, or at least I can't imagine how you would.

 

Then you should be the one railing against anyone claiming to know with any solidity, rather than me. You sound even more agnostic than me!

 

As for best strategy.

What do you think of mine?

To live your life free of using violence or aggression towards others.

 

I think it's likely overly simplistic. You not using violence or aggression doesn't necessarily stop those who do use it. It may even be that, in a game theory sense, when it's more unclear who will be violent or aggression, people are more cautious in general, including those who are themselves violent or aggressive.

I'm not saying that's the case. But I think it's extremely simplistic to think "If I reduce my level of violence, that addresses violence and aggression as a global issue." There are many issues where the same issue at a personal level has different factors involved than it does at a global level.

 

"I think it's likely overly simplistic. You not using violence or aggression doesn't necessarily stop those who do use it. It may even be that, in a game theory sense, when it's more unclear who will be violent or aggression, people are more cautious in general, including those who are themselves violent or aggressive.

I'm not saying that's the case. But I think it's extremely simplistic to think "If I reduce my level of violence, that addresses violence and aggression as a global issue." There are many issues where the same issue at a personal level has different factors involved than it does at a global level."

 

You can't beat something with nothing. What's your strategy?

[TronCat]

 

 

"Not just any dog can be trained to be a "fighting dog", this is understood by most anyone in that line of business."

 

Any dog can be trained to be vicious. And, any dog can be trained to fight. The breeds that are chosen are chosen because they have been bred in such a way that they often have brain abnormalities that don't occur naturally outside random instances and because they are strong enough to make the "show" a brutal, bloody fight. Poodles can be quite fierce and aggressive animals but they just can't create the bloodbaths that an 80lb Pit Bull Terrier can. This is why Pit's are the dog of choice.

 

With that out of the way, here is the yet unanswered question relating to dogs:

 

Kirk24: "If we were going to make financial bet as to whether dog was vicious,
and we had some standard to measure this when the dog was full grown.
But you have a choice to pick the breed or how it's raised what would
you choose?"

 

 

 

Poodles probably can be vicious, and Pit Bull's probably can be gentle - there are always exceptions to the rule.

Obviously I would choose a dog based on its breed.

[STer]

 

You can't beat something with nothing. What's your strategy?

 

You sure can. When it comes to rationalism, "We don't yet know" beats prematurely making up an answer when that's the honest truth. My answer - along with many of the people who study these things for a living - is "We need more research." Reserving judgment. We simply don't know enough to make a solid decision and the decisions are just too important to jump to conclusions.

I don't have to provide a better strategy to simply point out that the support for someone else's strategy may be overstated. If you think I do there is no logical basis for this discussion. And if I was to provide a better strategy I'd be contradicting my own point which is that we don't yet have enough fundamental basic scientific understanding of the dynamics to even decide that yet.

[kirk paolinelli]

How do you prove something is not the best strategy without showing a better strategy?

[STer]

 

How do you prove something is not the best strategy without showing a better strategy?

 

You mixed up burden of proof again. The burden of proof is on the person putting forth the strategy. Stefan appears to be claiming that, based on current research, we can conclude that the highest priority for bringing more peace to the world as a whole is to reduce childhood trauma. I do not believe he has provided sufficient evidence to support that claim.